Saturday, August 16, 2003
11:38 am
Sour Grapes - 16th August 2003, 11.37
Apropos to Bob's comment on Emmanuel's posting, it is clear that the French, worried that their reputation may have lost soem of the mud, decided to deny compensation for the grieving relatives of terrorist victims out of spite. Notice how their block of the Libyan package is couched in the values of solidarity, that favourite of the European Union although their statement does not mention the arrangement with Libya from 1999 where this issue was resolved. If they were so concerned with solidarity, why didn't they negotiate in tandem with the United States and Great Britain?
We hope that this painful episode can find an outcome that is satisfactory to our American and British partners and to the families of the victims. As you know, we have always maintained deep solidarity with our partners throughout this painful affair. We hope that they will do the same for the victims of UTA #772.
Their demands were quite clear: more money from Libya for French victims of terrorism before sanctions are lifted. Now, the rights and wrongs of that demand should not be used to veto another deal, since France proves an example of the 'free rider' problem in the political economy of foreign relations.
We maintain continuous contact with our Libyan interlocutors in order to obtain assurances that the legitimate demands of the families of the UTA victims, both French and foreign, are satisfied. We expect to see substantial progress on this point before any lifting of sanctions.
The French have always proved that they don't respect international treaties. In 2002, they started to abrogate the Antarctica Treaty by charging anchorage taxes and asserting their sovereignty over Antartican territory. Why shouldn't we kick them out for this unilateral action, against the wishes of all other signatories of the Antarctica treaty?
As part of this expedition, the "Sir Hubert Wilkins" had intended to visit Dumont d'Urville in the French Antacrtic Territory. On the 15th January, 2002, the "Sir Hubert Wilkins" received a message from Didier Drouet, the Station Leader on Dumont d'Urville informing them of their intention to charge the ship $2459.62 as an anchorage fee plus a personnel fee of $16.39 per person per day on board the ship. This has been interpreted as an assertion of sovereignty over the Antarctic Territory. This is in direct conflict with the ideals of the Antarctic Treaty.
The details are recorded in a statement from the Sir Hubert Wilkins.
The French Legislation as it currently stands is in breach of the Antarctic Treaty and does assert Sovereignty in Antarctica. It has no relevance what so ever to visiting Dumont d’Urville Base.
The Legislation is in two parts. The following covers the obvious relevant clauses justifying my assumption.
1. Decree number 2001-20 of 29 June 2001 Territorial Tax in Terre Australie et Antarctiques Francaises.
Article 1 - For every person entering French Antarctica, a personnel Tax is imposed to help with financing the cost of protection and restoration of the environment.
Article 2 - This Tax is imposed whenever a person sets foot on land within the Territories.
Article 3 - This Tax is imposed per person per day within the respective district.
Article 4 - The Tax is set out for the respective Territories - Terre Adelie (French Antarctic Territory) $16.39 Aust
Relevant Issues are that at no time is Dumont d’Urville Base ever mentioned and in fact it specifically refers to setting foot on land within the Territories to be charged per person per day whilst visiting the Territories, it must be assumed for whatever reason .
2. Decree number 2001- 19 of 29 June 2001. Anchorage Tax in Terre Australes et Antarctiques Francaises.
Article 1- An Anchorage Tax is imposed in French Antarctica.
Article 2- The Anchorage Tax is imposed when ever a vessel anchors within any of the districts of French Antarctica.
Article 3- The Anchorage Tax is set per vessel for fixed period of one month even if the stay is for a shorter period, within any of the district of French Antarctica.
Article 4- The Anchorage Tax is based on the size of the vessel as set out - 20- 50 metres $2459. Aust, 51 -100 metres $5739.
101 metres and above $12,298.
Relevant Issues here are that the Anchorage Tax is applicable to French Antarctic territory whenever and wherever a vessel anchors for up to one month. Specifically no mention is made of Dumont d’Urville Base.
In both Decrees any complaints regarding the Tax are to be forwarded to the Senior Administrator of Terres Australes et Antarctiques Francaises in Paris.
It's never too hard to find some nefarious example of their devious unilateralism. Why are the French so incompetent in their diplomacy?
Apropos to Bob's comment on Emmanuel's posting, it is clear that the French, worried that their reputation may have lost soem of the mud, decided to deny compensation for the grieving relatives of terrorist victims out of spite. Notice how their block of the Libyan package is couched in the values of solidarity, that favourite of the European Union although their statement does not mention the arrangement with Libya from 1999 where this issue was resolved. If they were so concerned with solidarity, why didn't they negotiate in tandem with the United States and Great Britain?
We hope that this painful episode can find an outcome that is satisfactory to our American and British partners and to the families of the victims. As you know, we have always maintained deep solidarity with our partners throughout this painful affair. We hope that they will do the same for the victims of UTA #772.
Their demands were quite clear: more money from Libya for French victims of terrorism before sanctions are lifted. Now, the rights and wrongs of that demand should not be used to veto another deal, since France proves an example of the 'free rider' problem in the political economy of foreign relations.
We maintain continuous contact with our Libyan interlocutors in order to obtain assurances that the legitimate demands of the families of the UTA victims, both French and foreign, are satisfied. We expect to see substantial progress on this point before any lifting of sanctions.
The French have always proved that they don't respect international treaties. In 2002, they started to abrogate the Antarctica Treaty by charging anchorage taxes and asserting their sovereignty over Antartican territory. Why shouldn't we kick them out for this unilateral action, against the wishes of all other signatories of the Antarctica treaty?
As part of this expedition, the "Sir Hubert Wilkins" had intended to visit Dumont d'Urville in the French Antacrtic Territory. On the 15th January, 2002, the "Sir Hubert Wilkins" received a message from Didier Drouet, the Station Leader on Dumont d'Urville informing them of their intention to charge the ship $2459.62 as an anchorage fee plus a personnel fee of $16.39 per person per day on board the ship. This has been interpreted as an assertion of sovereignty over the Antarctic Territory. This is in direct conflict with the ideals of the Antarctic Treaty.
The details are recorded in a statement from the Sir Hubert Wilkins.
The French Legislation as it currently stands is in breach of the Antarctic Treaty and does assert Sovereignty in Antarctica. It has no relevance what so ever to visiting Dumont d’Urville Base.
The Legislation is in two parts. The following covers the obvious relevant clauses justifying my assumption.
1. Decree number 2001-20 of 29 June 2001 Territorial Tax in Terre Australie et Antarctiques Francaises.
Article 1 - For every person entering French Antarctica, a personnel Tax is imposed to help with financing the cost of protection and restoration of the environment.
Article 2 - This Tax is imposed whenever a person sets foot on land within the Territories.
Article 3 - This Tax is imposed per person per day within the respective district.
Article 4 - The Tax is set out for the respective Territories - Terre Adelie (French Antarctic Territory) $16.39 Aust
Relevant Issues are that at no time is Dumont d’Urville Base ever mentioned and in fact it specifically refers to setting foot on land within the Territories to be charged per person per day whilst visiting the Territories, it must be assumed for whatever reason .
2. Decree number 2001- 19 of 29 June 2001. Anchorage Tax in Terre Australes et Antarctiques Francaises.
Article 1- An Anchorage Tax is imposed in French Antarctica.
Article 2- The Anchorage Tax is imposed when ever a vessel anchors within any of the districts of French Antarctica.
Article 3- The Anchorage Tax is set per vessel for fixed period of one month even if the stay is for a shorter period, within any of the district of French Antarctica.
Article 4- The Anchorage Tax is based on the size of the vessel as set out - 20- 50 metres $2459. Aust, 51 -100 metres $5739.
101 metres and above $12,298.
Relevant Issues here are that the Anchorage Tax is applicable to French Antarctic territory whenever and wherever a vessel anchors for up to one month. Specifically no mention is made of Dumont d’Urville Base.
In both Decrees any complaints regarding the Tax are to be forwarded to the Senior Administrator of Terres Australes et Antarctiques Francaises in Paris.
It's never too hard to find some nefarious example of their devious unilateralism. Why are the French so incompetent in their diplomacy?
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
August
(39)
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 110 Monday, 25 A...
- Zimwatch: Client State - 27th August 2003, 6.56 T...
- The Silly Season Is Over - 26th August 2003, 22.15...
- Are we building a funeral pyre? Sorry to use the ...
- Supping with the Devil - 23rd August 2003, 22.36 ...
- All our army According to "security expert" Micha...
- Greening the European Constitution - 23rd August 2...
- Why can't we have one? We have the scientists, we...
- Hutton: The Final Stretch - 22nd August 2003, 00.0...
- Airstrip One turns Blairite Well one aspect of th...
- Blairite before Blair - 20th August 2003, 23.05 B...
- Bet they won't publish you The Foreign and Common...
- Irony in Kabul Forget about the Edinburgh Fringe,...
- Day Five: An Imperfect Spy - 18th August 2003, 22....
- The Lions of Southall - 17th August 2003, 23.08 W...
- No-Conservatism Irving Kristol, first Neoconserva...
- Sour Grapes - 16th August 2003, 11.37 Apropos to ...
- You think I do conspiracies? So how's this for ta...
- Did they actually say that? The Last Ditch, a rat...
- The Stone Tape - 13th August 2003, 23.31 The comm...
- Forty-Eight Hours - 12th August 2003, 22.36 Now t...
- On the First Day... - 11th August 2003, 10.53 Lor...
- This Liberal Empire - 10th August 2003, 13.24 The...
- Nothing to report today I know there's stuff goin...
- Regarding Pinochet Every now and again I realise ...
- Demography is Depressing for Central Europe - 6th ...
- Demography is Destiny Stuart Reid runs through th...
- The Iraqi Gravy Train Well it was bound to happen...
- The Myth of an Impartial Authority - 5th August 20...
- Badly Spun Why on earth did Downing Street accuse...
- The Deepening of Anglo-American Co-operation on Mi...
- Why don't they just bus them in? Let's hope this ...
- Another Hint - 3rd August 2003, 17.53 The weakeni...
- Riding two horses - 3rd August 2003, 17.39 Mary D...
- Zimwatch: Body of Evidence This particularly nast...
- The Inquiry - 2nd August 2003, 18.07 The Grauniad...
- Reflections of a Guardian Browser Peter Briffa ge...
- Samizdata says we're all lefties now This entry o...
- Welcome to Kellyland Austin Mitchell has a new we...
-
▼
August
(39)
0 comments:
Post a Comment